Most OTC orals are either very weak and you need a lot OR are very strong and toxic
Are you suggesting that today's OTC steroids are considerably more toxic than traditional orals? If so, you would be incorrect. This was true at one time, but no longer, as the more toxic drugs have all been banned (and even they were still safe for use). Even the most toxic OTC steroids being sold today have been clinically proven, using human studies, to be safe and well tolerated in ALL test subjects. In fact, some of them, like Dimethazine, was a prescription drug in Italy and Mexico, being used for decades without any issues. Dimethazine is considerably less toxic than a drug like Halotestin, yet we don't see anyone saying Halotestin should not be used due to excessive toxicity. Why do you think Halotestin was approved for human use and is still in production today? It certainly isn't because it is too toxic to use. Aside from steroids like Anadrol, Dimethazine, and Halotestin, all of which have been clinically proven to be safe...there are also several other OTC steroids which are considerably LESS toxic than many of today's traditional steroids. So, the entire toxicity argument is invalid. Actually, the toxicity of oral steroids in general has been severely blown out of proportion. Overall, oral AAS are a safe and well tolerated class of drugs...and this includes today's OTC steroids.
; M-Sten, DMZ, Superdrol.
M-sten is not nearly as toxic as originally thought. The typical dose of M-sten is no worse than Anadrol. In fact, I have seen multiple lab reports from users showing liver enzymes which were less elevated than what I have routinely seen with those using 100 mg of Anadrol per day. SD is now banned, so it is irrelevant, but I want to address it for a minute anyway, as it proves my point regarding the safety of the current OTC steroids. SD was one of, if not THE most popular OTC steroid EVER sold...literally 10,000's of people have used use SD, many of them irresponsibly...and yet there is not a single report in the literature of ANYONE experiencing irrepairable liver damage from this drug. In reality, there have only been a FEW isolated cases of people experiencing semi-serious liver issues with SD...and these cases involved severe ABUSE of the drug, along with concomttant alcohol and anti-inflammatory use abuse...not to mention it was being used for several months on end at excessive dosages...and one of these individuals even had a pre-existing liver condition!!! Of these FEW people, all of them recovered just fine on their own after they stopped harming themselves with excessive alcohol and SD intake. So, with 10,000's of people using SD for almost a decade, why haven't we seen a single person need a liver transplant if this drug was so toxic? I will tell you why...because it isn't!!!! Hell, even Anadrol has caused the deaths of at least a dozen or more people from liver failure (always in cases of extreme abuse), but we haven't seen a single cause of someone experiencing this same fate with SD. Has anyone here heard of a single person on ANY BB'ing board over the last 10 years needing a liver transplant from SD? I sure haven't...and I don't know anyone else who has either. This is proof positive that the toxicity argument is bullshit...and certainly NOT a reason to abstain from these products in favor of traditional orals. If SD can be used under these circumstances, with zero government regulation, then today's OTC steroids, all of which are less toxic, are quite safe.
Most people have little issue with Dbol, Anadrol, Var, Tbol but can't stand 3 weeks on 20mg of SD.
To the contrary, most people feel fine when using properly compounded SD, but that is besides the point, as we aren't even addressing SD here (it is banned). We are talking about out current OTC steroids, all of which are tolerated quite well by the general population. Sure, some people might respond poorly, but this is no different than many of our traditional steroids...and it certainly isn't cause for abstinence. Just look at Anadrol...many people feel like shit when using it. When it comes to the steroids in Methadrol and Super DMZ (Dimethazine & M-sten)...the large majority of people feel fine when using them. howeverm i can;t say the same for a dreug like trenbolone, in which MOST people feel like shit and have to put up with a barrage of side effects. There is No doubt that Trenbolone, in general, is a much less pleasant drug to run than Methadrol or DMZ. Actually, it probably cause more side effects than any other steroid, yet this hasn't stopped people from using it...or Anadrol...and it has been many decades now. So, if we are using "feelings" to determine whether or not a steroid should be used, I guess trenbolone is out.
Obviously, how someone "feels" when using a particular steroid is NOT an accurate test of safety. If you personally feel like shit when using Dimethazine (most people do NOT), then you don't have to use it, just like I rarely use trenbolone because it makes me feel horrible in general, but I am not going to try and dissaude others from using tren just because I don't feel well on it.
I like that there are studies that support DMZ but this reads like an advertisement from IML products because frankly, that's what the OP is.
Of course, it is an advertisment (I work for IML-BSL), but guess what? This doesn't change the fact that everything I posted in the OP is 100% true. It also doesn't change the fact that long before I worked for these companies, I was saying the same exact thing you see me saying in the OP above. I learned very quickly how strong these stereoids were. After gaining more muscle with these drugs than I ever did with traditional orals...repeatedly...it quickly became apparent that all the clinical data and real-world evidence I had heard about was true.
Anadrol has been shown in cancer patients to be safe for extended use and at doses higher than many expect which is why people use it without issue so often.
In general, I would say people tolerate steroids such a Dimethazine and M-sten better than Anadrol...but the comparison is really kind of pointless anyway, as they are all steroids, which many people have used with success time and time again.
I don't think its the best idea to push OTC products that have no research behind them compared to many of the illegal orals that were extensively studied.
Like I said above, some of the OTC steroids do have clinical research supporting their safety in human beings, BUT if you are saying we should not recommend any OTC steroids which were not expressly studied in humans, then I gues all of us are going to be severaly limited from this time forward, as MOST of today's PED's do not have any human clinical research suppoting their effectiveness or safety, so I guess we're shit out of luck. This includes almost all of today's peptides....and many steroids, both oral and injectable. The OTC market makes up a small portion of the PED's being used by today's BB'rs, but at least BSL conducts extensive lab testing to make sure there is a purity & potency gaurantee. If you want to talk about risk, your chances of running into medical problems are WAY, WAY higher when you inject yourself with untested, un-regulated, UGL steroids...and there is NO doubt about that. So, if you are really being fair, you would not seek to designate today's OTC steroids as un-safe when there are so many commonly used steroids which not only have zero human testing behind them, but which also possess several other "serious" risk factors which OTC steroids do NOT! The bottom line is that these OTC orals are in many ways some of the safest steroids you can use. They are produced under government approved conditions, independently 3rd party lab tested for both purity & potency, do not come with the injection risks of contaminated underground products...and some even have human clinical research supporting theur safety, such as Dimethazine (DMZ and Methadrol). So, if you want a product to use which minimizes risk, in many ways today's OTC steroids compare very well against or fair better than what is found with many illegal drugs.
Lastly, I would rather put on 10 pounds via test alone or test and another compound without the stress on my liver not to mention if it comes over 12-16 weeks I will keep a lot more of that than if itis over 3-4.[
As already stated, the liver stress argument is total bullshit. As far as the gains retention argument goes, with you inferring you will keep more of your gains with testosterone and another drug if gained over 12-16 weeks, that is also total bullshit. Post-cycle muscle retention is dependent on a single factor...your body's natural hormonal environment relative to its genetic capacity to hold muscle tissue. It does not matter what drugs you use or how long it takes to to add muscle tissue. Before I address the issue of muscle fiber retention, I want to address the issue of bodyweight retention, as these are two very different things. We often hear that it is more difficult to miantain gains with some steroids compared to others, but this is 100% hogshit. In reality, all steroids offer the same degree of muscle fiber retention, but can vary considerably in terms of bodyweight retention. This is because weight gains are not necessarily indicative of muscle fiber gains. Steroids can cause weight gain through multiple mechanims, such as intramuscular (IM) water retention, sub-q water retention, increased blood volume, muscle fiber growth, etc. So, just because someone might gain 20 lbs in 4 weeks with a certain steroid, it does not mean they gained 20 lbs of muscle. Most people understand this, but they make the mistake of attempting to assess the amount of muscle fiber they gained by looming at how watery they look. This is a big mistake, as I.M water retention is not visisble and could make up a large portion of their bodyweight gains. For example, Anadrol causes a very large amount of IM water retention by inhibiting the 11-beta hydroxylase enzyme, so when someone uses Anadrol, they will usualy gain a large amount of bodyweight very quickly...within just 2 weeks. However, when the person goes off of Anadrol, they lose all of this IM water weight just as fast, as well as any sub-q ater weight they gained. This is why people lose bodyweight so quickly when going off of Anadrol. It is not because they lose muscle fiber more quickly than with other steroids...it is only because the body is no longer being commanded to hold a ton of water. With a drug like Primo, there is very, very little IM water retention...and no sub-q water retention. It also causes a significantly smaller increase in blood volume than Anadrol. Therefore, when the user stopd taking primo, they lose very little bodyweight. This leads people to belive that Primo has a high rate of gains retention. In reality, there is no difference.
As far as long-term muscle fiber retention goes, it has NOTHING to do with what kind of steroids are used or how quickly muscle is gained. It comes down to one thing...how much muscle a person hold relative to their natural genetic limit, which is wholly dependent on their nartural hormonal environment.
As soon as someone hits their natural genetic limit in terms of muscle mass, they will NEVER be able to maintain one ounce of muscle beyond that point without the assisatnce of steroids. Sure, they might be able to take steroids and gain 30 more pounds of muscle fiber, but as soon as they go back off steroids, they will lose every single ounce of muscle they gained if they stay off steroids long enough...until they go back down to their natural genetic limit. On the flips side, if someone is still 40 lbs away from their natural genetic limit and they gain 30 pounds of actual muscle fiber with steroids, they will be able to maintain all that new muscle naturally, even if they permanently go off steroids....assuming they eat enough to maintain the newly built muscle. This is because they were still 40 pounds away from what they could have gained naturally. Their hormonal environment was still capable of maintaining another 40 pounds of muscle fiber. With steroids, we super-charge our hormonal envirinment, allowing us to build and maintain much more muscle than what we can achieve naturally. It does not matter how long it takes us to build muscle fiber...or what steroids we use to build it....we will ONLY maintain it IF we have a hormonal environment capable of miantaining it...and that is all that matters. This is why pro BB'rs must permanently stay on a large amount of AAS if they want to maintain their size...and also why they lose muscle so rapidly if they go completely off.
So, gains retention is NO greater with test & d-bol when gained over 12-16 weeks, than it is when adding the same amount of msucle tissue in 4 weeks with SD. Muscle fiber is muscle fiber...and gains retention doesn't change based on steriod selection of length use. I have personally gained 18 pounds in 30 days when using 30 mg of SD...and I have gained the exact same amount of weight using test & deca over 8 weeks. However, I lost nearly half my bodyweight with the test & deca when I went off, but I only lost 4 lbs when I went off the SD. This has nothing to do with one steroid providing better gains retention. I kept more weight with SD simply because a larger percentage of the bodyweight I gained was pure muscle fiber. In essence, gains (muscle fiber) retention was the same with both cycles....the test & deca simply added more water, so I lost more weight post-cycle.
However you try to knock these OTC steroids, the facts are spelled our very clearly in the OP. The truth is that Methadrol and DMZ contain steroids proven to build more muscle than Anadrol (mg per mg), in addition to coming with a purity & potency gaurantee...and just as importantly, there are human clinical studies proving their safety....as well as decades of prescription use in other countries. If you don't want to use these products...then don't, but don't try and skew the facts for others just because you may have a vendetta against them. Maybe you have used some OTC "PH's"...or weak steroids which didn't work very well...and it wouldn't suprise me because some of them have sucked over the years, especially in the beginning of the industry. The first ones were complete trash, but we have advanced very far in this industry...and right now, there are 100% active steroids available with greater potency than Anadrol. Neither their potency, their safety, or their purity can be disputed or denied...unless you deny reality. So, use what you want, but don't bash the products without cause.
Are AI's a good precaution with Methadrol? If so which would be best? I've heard some are better depending on the gear being used.